typology

Two leaders of the new U.S. House could put Baptist diversity in the news spotlight

Two leaders of the new U.S. House could put Baptist diversity in the news spotlight

There could hardly be a greater contrast than New Yorker Hakeem Jeffries’ glide into leadership of the U.S. House Democratic minority and that of California Republican Kevin McCarthy’s agonizing 15-ballot crawl to barely become House Speaker in the worst such Capitol Hill fuss since the Civil War.

Jeffries, of course, wins news renown as Congress’s first African-American party leader. But here’s a factoid has gotten little media notice. Yes, this is a religion angle.

By coincidence, both party leaders are now Baptists, a faith that outside the South has generally been underrepresented among the political elite. Catholics (think Nancy Pelosi, John Boehner, Paul Ryan) monopolized the speaker and minority leader posts for much of the 21st.Century.

There would be good feature potential in comparing the two Baptists’ congregations.

Though Jeffries has an Arabic first name (meaning “wise”), he’s a lifelong worshiper at Cornerstone Baptist Church,  a prominent African-American congregation in Brooklyn. Senior Pastor Lawrence Aker III and his wife Cynthia have the distinction of holding diverse divinity degrees from both “evangelical” Dallas Theological Seminary and “mainline” Yale.

McCarthy’s congregation is the equally well-known Valley Baptist Church in his hometown of Bakersfield. Senior Pastor Roger Spradlin, who trained at Criswell College, has served Valley since 1983 and now leads a team of eight clergy. This is a typical white evangelical fellowship and affiliated with the nation’s largest Protestant denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention, which Spradlin has served as chairman of the national executive committee.

Speaking of religion on Capitol Hill, reporters will want to keep on file the official religious affiliations of all 534 members of the incoming House and Senate (with one vacancy due to death) accessible by clicking here. The handy list is compiled every two years by the Pew Research Center from information the legislators themselves file with CQ Roll Call.

Labels may say little.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Podcast: Are (all) evangelicals the only folks tempted to gloss over candidates' sins?

Podcast: Are (all) evangelicals the only folks tempted to gloss over candidates' sins?

Oh my. It appears that editors at the New York Times has veered back into what could be called “evangelical voter monolith mode” once again.

I base that comment on the thesis paragraphs of a recent Times report that ran with the headline, “‘Saved by Grace’: Evangelicals Find a Way Forward With Herschel Walker.” That story was the hook for this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (CLICK HERE to tune that in). I will return to the Walker drama in a minute.

But before we go there, let’s pause and flash back to a Gray Lady report from a few months ago that ran with this headline: “As a ‘Seismic Shift’ Fractures Evangelicals, an Arkansas Pastor Leaves Home.” It’s the first half of that headline that interests us, right now. Here is some of the crucial language:

Across the country, theologically conservative white evangelical churches that were once comfortably united have found themselves at odds over many of the same issues dividing the Republican Party and other institutions. …

Michael O. Emerson, a sociologist at the University of Illinois Chicago, described a “seismic shift” coming, with white evangelical churches dividing into two broad camps: those embracing [Donald] Trump-style messaging and politics, including references to conspiracy theories, and those seeking to navigate a different way.

That’s accurate, of course. Anyone who has followed evangelical debates in the Trump era knows that the big story is rooted in tension, pain and divisions — not monolithic unity about how to approach politics.

At the same time, evangelicals are still facing a crushing binary reality when they approach election-day decisions — trying to decide, in some cases, between what they view as flawed GOP candidates and Democratic candidates whose stances on First Amendment and sanctity-of-life issues put them in a “can’t go there” category.

Evangelicals of various kinds do not agree on how to handle that, falling into camps that resemble the 2016 and 2020 national elections.

Thus, here is a flashback to my Trump-era evangelical voter typology from several years ago. When reading it this time, simply substitute “Walker” for “Trump” and apply these camps to White, Black (they exist) and Latino (they exist) evangelical/charismatic voters in Georgia.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Here we go again: With Catholic news, reporters should be careful with this word -- 'reform'

Here we go again: With Catholic news, reporters should be careful with this word -- 'reform'

Let’s pause for a moment and reconsider a very loaded and tricky word that shows up all the time religion-news coverage (as well as political coverage, of course).

That word is “reform.”

For really, really, loyal GetReligion readers, I will admit that I am, in part, flashing back to this 2008 GetReligion post: “Who gets to "reform" what?” Once again, let’s look at some of the language that shows up in online dictionaries when you search for that term. To “reform” an institution or a law means to:

* make changes for improvement in order to remove abuse and injustices; "reform a political system" * bring, lead, or force to abandon a wrong or evil course of life, conduct, and adopt a right one; "The Church reformed me"; "reform your conduct" ... * a change for the better as a result of correcting abuses; "justice was for sale before the reform of the law courts" ... * improve by alteration or correction of errors or defects and put into a better condition; "reform the health system in this country" * a campaign aimed to correct abuses or malpractices. ...

The key words in that digital cloud are these: “improve by alteration or correction of errors or defects …”

Also, let me remind readers that I am not a Roman Catholic. Some people seem to be confused about that. My views on this topic are based on decades of reporting (and a graduate-school readings class focusing on the church before and after Vatican II) about the very complex world of Catholic life and thought.

With that in mind, let’s look at the top of a recent Religion News Service story that ran with this headline: “Can Pope Francis make real change for women? Vatican women leaders assess his chances.

VATICAN CITY (RNS) — A panel of women who have attained leadership positions in the Catholic Church met … to discuss Pope Francis’ ambitious plan to reform the power structures in the church, raising questions about female ordination, the role of bishops and the need for women theologians.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Thinking about J.S. Bach: As it turns out, it's hard to ignore the composer's views on doctrine

Thinking about J.S. Bach: As it turns out, it's hard to ignore the composer's views on doctrine

Sometimes we forget how strange the Internet is, in terms of providing an environment for reading and sharing news stories and other features.

Readers used to be able to flip through their daily newspaper and know that they had a chance, in an orderly manner, to look at “everything” that was in those pages. Today, there is no way to know — for a variety of technical reasons — if you’ve looked at everything in the “daily” New York Times or any other news product . It all exists in a vast digital cloud of material that is always evolving and being updated. There is no logical sequence or form.

People find “news stories” with a search engine, they run into them on Facebook or people end them URLs in emails or texts. Often these articles are stripped of context — news or editorial, for example — and often the publication dates vanish, as well.

Thus, every now and then, GetReligion readers ship us a story that they think deserves praise or criticism. Sure enough, I’ll find that it’s amazing and start work on a post and then notice — oh no — that it’s actually several years old.

This happened to me the other day with a “feature” story from the Times with this headline: “Johann Sebastian Bach Was More Religious Than You Might Think.” Well, I love Bach. As far as I am concerned, the stunningly productive and brilliant Bach is either (a) evidence of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, (b) the most important artist in the history of Western civilization or (c) both.

I dug into the piece and quickly realized that this essay by Michael Marissen, author of “Bach & God,” wasn’t a news feature and, on top of that, it ran in 2018. I’m sharing it as a weekend “think piece” because it is fascinating stuff and contains an interesting example of modern thinkers reaching conclusions about a historical figure — even though there is hard evidence that directly contradicts their views. This feature focuses on a piece of Bach material (not a piece of music) that I didn’t know about — with incredible implications for discussions of this cultural giant’s faith. Here is the overture:

Bach biographers don’t have it easy. Has there ever been a composer who wrote so much extraordinary music and left so little documentation of his personal life?


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Evangelical 'power' and U.S. Capitol rioting: What about Franklin Graham and Falwell Jr.?

Evangelical 'power' and U.S. Capitol rioting: What about Franklin Graham and Falwell Jr.?

As a rule, I don’t use GetReligion posts to respond to feedback from readers. But several people — in emails, for the most part — have raised two crucial, and valid, questions about last week’s “Crossroads” podcast and post: “New York Times says 'Christian nationalism' tied to white 'evangelical power'.”

Actually, it’s the same question asked in two different ways. Hold that thought.

In the podcast and post, I argued that a much-read New York Times piece (“How White Evangelical Christians Fused With Trump Extremism“) did a fine job while offering illustrations that conspiracy theories such as the QAnon gospel have soaked into many pews and a few pulpits, especially in independent (and often small) charismatic and evangelical churches. My question was whether the feature provided solid evidence for this thesis:

The blend of cultural references, and the people who brought them, made clear a phenomenon that has been brewing for years now: that the most extreme corners of support for Mr. Trump have become inextricable from some parts of white evangelical power in America. Rather than completely separate strands of support, these groups have become increasingly blended together.

The key word was “power,” as in “some parts of evangelical power” becoming “inextricable” from the “most extreme” forms of Trump support — which has to be a reference to those who planned, not the legal National Mall rally for Trump, but the illegal armed attack on the U.S. Capitol.

In response, I wrote:

… Anyone who studies “evangelicalism” — white or otherwise — knows that we are talking about a movement based on the work of powerful denominations (this includes megachurches), parachurch groups, publishers (and authors) and major colleges, universities and seminaries.

This led to several people asking this valid question: What about the Rev. Franklin Graham? Others asked: What about Jerry Falwell, Jr., and Liberty University?

These are certainly examples of evangelical brand names — Graham and Falwell.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

This week's podcast: It isn't 'fake news' to recognize that America remains a divided land

This week’s “Crossroads” podcast (click here to tune that in) was rather unusual. Instead of focusing on a specific bite of news, or a topic drawing coverage, host Todd Wilken and I spent most of our time discussing a new survey that I truly believe is worthy of coverage.

A key element of this study is the role that “fake news” plays in cleaving America into two warring cultures. However, that omnipresent term really isn’t defined. Apparently, when Americans think about “fake news” we are rather like U.S. Supreme Court justices contemplating pornography — they know it when they see it. Hold that thought, because we will come back to it.

The key is that “fake news” has become the fightin’ word attached to the many ways in which a rising tide of advocacy media is tearing apart the foundation of American public discourse.

Here at GetReligion, we think that there is more to this than mere political bias. For decades, many — not all — American journalists have struggled to do accurate, fair-minded coverage of religious, moral and cultural issues (think “Kellerism”). This trend has now spread into other parts of American life, leaving far too many citizens, on left and right, locked inside concrete news and entertainment silos. For many citizens, the next step is to embrace conspiracy theories or even dangerous forms of rebellion.

All of these themes show up in the new study, “Democracy in Dark Times,” which is the 2020 edition of the Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture’s Survey of American Political Culture series. The team that produced it includes a scholar, sociologist James Davison Hunter, whose works — “Culture Wars,” for example — will be familiar to many GetReligion readers.

Think of it this way: This man wrote a book in 1994, a quarter of a century ago, entitled “Before the Shooting Begins.”

The new study, using terms central to Hunter’s book “To Change the World,” seeks to “understand not just the political weather, but the cultural climate shaping the election as well.” Here is a crucial passage — long, but essential — on the role advocacy media is playing:

The American public’s deep misgivings toward governmental and economic institutions extends to a suspicion of the media. Just over two-thirds (68%) of all Americans agree that “you can’t believe much of what you hear from the mainstream media,” and just under two-thirds (63%) believe that “media distortions and fake news” are a very or extremely serious threat to America.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Thinking with Ryan Burge: Religious faith, moral convictions and obeying the law

You can learn a lot about protest and civil disobedience by studying this history of religious movements in America and around the world. I did that in college and grad school.

I also learned quite a bit these topics while, as a reporter, hiking out into the vast expanses of northeastern Colorado in the mid 1980s with some Catholic peace activists who planned to stage a protest at the gate surrounding a set of nuclear missile silos. I saw one of the same nuns get arrest at an abortion facility.

At some point, of course, protesters face a choice — will they break the law. That sounds like a simple line in the legal sand, but it isn’t.

Here is what I remember from that experience long ago. I offer this imperfect and simple typology as a way of introducing another interesting set of statistics — in a chart, of course — from social scientist Ryan Burge of the ReligionInPublic blog, who is also a GetReligion contributor.

This particular set of numbers looks at various religious traditions and the degree to which these various believers say they obey laws, without exception. You can see how that might affect questions linked to protest, civil disobedience and even the use of violence in protests.

But back to the very high plains of Colorado. We discussed several different levels of protest.

* Protesters can, of course, apply for parade permits and, when they have received one, they can strictly cooperate with public officials.

* It is possible to hold protests in public places where assemblies of various kinds are legal — period.

* Then again, protesters can obstruct city streets for as long as possible and, when confronted by police, they can disburse without a major confrontation.

* Or not. At some point, protesters can peacefully violate a law and refuse to leave — whether that’s a major road crossing, the whites only rows of a city bus, the front gates of an abortion facility or the security zone outside a nuclear missile silo. Hanging protest banners — or similar actions — is another option here. In civil disobedience, protesters accept that they will be arrested.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

What's the one thing journalists need to learn from the Christianity Today firestorm?

Let’s consider this an educational moment. Since journalists are paying lots of attention, right now, to Christianity Today and other things linked to the late Billy Graham, let’s do a flashback to some poll numbers published in the fall of 2018.

This polling was done by the Billy Graham Center Institute at Wheaton College, working with LifeWay Research. One of the goals was to understand why evangelicals voted the way that they did in 2016.

Lots of things grabbed my attention, but here are some numbers that I think journalists need to ponder at the moment in light of the recent CT editorial by departing editor Mark Galli. You may have heard about it. The headline proclaimed: “Trump Should Be Removed from Office.”

But back to CT in 2018. The bytes that jumped out at me:

* Only half of the evangelicals polled voted for the candidate that they truly wanted to support in the White House race.

* One out of three said that they voted AGAINST Hillary Clinton or AGAINST Donald Trump.

* One in four white evangelicals said that they voted AGAINST Trump. One in three black evangelicals said the same thing.

* At least 20% of evangelicals didn’t vote (and I’ve seen figures as high as 40% elsewhere).

Put it all together and a high percentage — 77% in this poll — of white evangelicals did said that they voted for Trump. However, echoing earlier CT reporting, only about half of them said that they wanted to do so.

I wrote a national column about that with this headline: “Complex realities behind that ‘81 percent of evangelicals love Trump’ media myth.” Here’s how it ended:

Waves of news about this 81 percent vote have “created a simplistic, negative caricature of who evangelicals are, right now,” said Ed Stetzer, director of the Billy Graham Center. “It allows lazy people to keep saying that all of those evangelicals are ‘all in’ for Donald Trump. ... They’re trying to turn Trump voters into Trump.

”Trump voters are not Trump, and that’s certainly true for most evangelicals.”

So what’s the Big Idea that journalists need to learn from all of this, including the Galli editorial?


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Pew gap 2020: Thinking about Emma Green, sad Trump voters and woke wing of Democratic Party

As the 2020 White House race draws closer, I think I hear a familiar train a comin’. Or maybe it’s this slow train, coming up around the bend. I’ve already bought my new political t-shirt for the months ahead.

Whatever you want to call it, the train that’s coming is more and more coverage of Donald Trump and his white evangelical voters — both enthusiastic supporters and reluctant ones. It’s the same train that so many mainstream journalists spotted in 2016, but never took the time to understand (or were unwilling to make that effort, for some strange reason).

The bottom line: They thought the whole “81 percent” thing was a story about the Republican Party and the Republican Party, alone.

As for me, I keep thinking about all the church-goin’ people that I know who really, really, really do not want to vote for Trump. Yet they hear the train a comin’, since they remain worried about all those familiar issues linked to the First Amendment, abortion, the U.S. Supreme Court, etc. (Click here for my breakdown on the various evangelical voting camps in the Trump era.)

So what is happening on the Democratic Party side of this story?

That brings me to a short, but important, essay by Emma Green (she’s everywhere, these days) that ran at The Atlantic Monthly website with this headline: “Pete Buttigieg Takes Aim at Religious Hypocrisy.” It starts you know where:

On the debate stage, Buttigieg gave voice to a view that has become common among Democratic voters: Many of Trump’s policies, along with his conduct as president, do not reflect Christian values. “The Republican Party likes to cloak itself in the language of religion,” Buttigieg said. “We should call out hypocrisy when we see it.”

Many religious conservatives, of course, agree with that statement, that Trump’s conduct doesn’t “reflect Christian values.” His policies? That’s a bizarre, very mixed bag, for most religious conservatives that I know.

Back to Green:

This has been a theme throughout Buttigieg’s campaign. The mayor has spoken openly about his religious faith and rallied religious rhetoric to his advantage: This spring, he called out Mike Pence for his opposition to same-sex marriage, saying, “Your quarrel, sir, it is with my creator.”

This is a departure from the usual playbook for the Democratic Party.


Please respect our Commenting Policy